Supreme Court Limits Application Of Freedom Of Information Law

Supreme Court Limits Application Of Foi Law

The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain committees created by public agencies are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and can meet privately, without public notice or participation.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving the Eighth Utilities District, a public agency in Manchester that created a study committee to review its election procedures. At issue was whether the study committee was itself a public agency subject to freedom of information laws.

Writing for the Supreme Court's 4-1 majority, Justice David M. Borden said the freedom of information law is unclear about whether it covers study or advisory committees appointed by public agencies.

Chief Justice Ellen A. Peters dissented, arguing that the law "plainly includes a committee whose membership overlaps that of the public agency that is its creator."

In her pointed remarks, Peters said the public's right to know would be damaged by the majority's ruling.

"The committee, or its successor, will be free to conduct its deliberations entirely in private, having no legal obligation to conduct any public meeting whatsoever," she wrote.

"For the process of getting business done, shaping the agenda is at least half the battle," Peters wrote. Allowing that to be done in private is inconsistent with the aims of the freedom of information law, she said.

The case began in May 1988 when the district -- which is respopnsible for fire and sewer services in the north end of Manchester -- appointed an "elections review committee" to consider changes in how the district conducts its annual meetings.

The review committee was composed of one member of the district's board of directors and three residents of the district. A resident sought minutes of the committee's meetings, taking the issue to the Freedom of Information Commission.

The commission ruled that the review committee was a public agency and had to provide minutes. The district appealed, and a trial court overruled the commission.

Monday, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's

decision, saying the General Assembly only intended the law to cover committees that are "sub-units" of the public agencies that create them.

For such committees to be subject to freedom of information requirements regarding public notice, public participation and the keeping of minutes, the committees must be composed entirely or mostly of members from the appointing agency, the majority said.

But the justices left doubt about exactly how it defined a sub-unit or how it would rule in similar cases.

"We do not hold that a public agency may avoid having to comply with the provisions of the FOIA by appointing one or more persons that are not agency members to any of its committees," Borden wrote in a footnote. "The facts of this case do not support such a pretext, however, and we will address such an occurrence when it is properly before this court."

Mitchell Pearlman, executive director of the Freedom of Information Commission, said Monday that he had not seen the court's opinion but was disappointed in the result.

The case could significantly restrict public access to meetings and might prompt the commission to seek a change in the law, he said.

Commission attorney Constance L. Chambers also said she was surprised at the result.

"It certainly is cutting down on the number of advisory bodies that will fall under the Freedom of Information Act," she said.

Dan E. LaBelle, attorney for the district, said he doubted that the case would set a major precedent regarding which committees must meet in public.

"I guess the case is significant because it shows that there are some limits to the Freedom of Information Act," he said.

Perry Dodson, the Manchester resident who filed the original complaint nearly three years ago, was philosophical about losing.

"I haven't been satisfied from the beginning and I guess I won't be satisfied now," he said.

By JOHN M. MORAN; Courant Staff Writer

The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain committees created by public agencies are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and can meet privately, without public notice or participation.

The ruling stemmed from a case involving the Eighth Utilities District, a public agency in Manchester that created a study committee to review its election procedures. At issue was whether the study committee was itself a public agency subject to freedom of information laws.

Writing for the Supreme Court's 4-1 majority, Justice David M. Borden said the freedom of information law is unclear about whether it covers study or advisory committees appointed by public agencies.

Chief Justice Ellen A. Peters dissented, arguing that the law "plainly includes a committee whose membership overlaps that of the public agency that is its creator."

In her pointed remarks, Peters said the public's right to know would be damaged by the majority's ruling.